Tower v. Winston et al, No. 7:2018cv00368 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Glen E. Conrad on 11/16/2018. (tvt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
CLERK' S OFFICE U,S.DISX COUX AT ROANOKE,VA FILED IN TH E UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR TIIE W ESTERN DISTRICT OF W RGINIA ROANOK E DIW SION TAY LO R NA TH AM EL TO W ER , Plaintiff, V. GREGORY P.W INSTON c AL., D efendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) d2V 15 , 2218 JULI A . BY: EY CLFRK CASE NO.7:18CV00368 M EM OM NDUM OPIM ON . By: Glen E.Conrad SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge TaylorNathanielTower,aVirginia inmateproceeding pro K ,filed thiscivilrightsaction plzrsuantto 42 U.S.C.j1983,alleging thathe washoused tmder tmconstimtionalconditions whileconfined attheNew RiverValleyRegionalJail(EW RVRJ'').1 Afterreview oftherecord, the courtconcludesthatthiscivilaction mustbesum mmily dismissed. Tower's allegations are sparse:(1);1lwas housed in Protective Custody segregation withoutaclassifcation forover4 months. 12-15-17to 4-15-18'';(2)ç:Ihavebeen deniedmy dueprocessandaccesstothegrievanceprocessmultipletimes'';and(3)&$Ihavenotbeenoutside forrecreationsinceDecember6,2017.''Compl.2,ECFNo.1.Towerfiledthisj 1983actionIn July 2018,seeldngm onetary dam agesagainstdefendantsGregoryP.W inston andKevin Jones. Under47U.S.C.j1997e(c)(1),thecourtmay dismissany j1983 actionGlwithrespectto prison conditions...ifthecourtissatisfiedthattheaction isfrivolous,malicious,(orqfailsto statea claim upon which reliefcan be granted.'' Section 1983 perm itsan aggrieved party to Iile a civil action against a person for actions taken tmder color of state 1aw that violated his Tower v. Winston et al Doc. 9 constitutionalrights. See Cooperv.Sheehan,735 F.3d 153,158 (4th Cir.2013). To state a clain'i,a j1983 complaintmustbe more than Gllabelsand conclusions''or Gtnaked assertions 1 Tow ernotifedthecourtonO ctober25,2018:thatheisnow coptined intheVirginiaPeninsulaRegional JailinWilliamsburg,Virginia,ajailfacilitylocatedwithm thejurisdictionoftheUnitedStatesDistrictCourtforthe Eastern DistrictofVirginia. Dockets.Justia.com devoid offurtherfacmalenhancement.''2 A shcroftv Iqbal,556U.S.662,678(2009).Rather, . ç1acomplaintmustcontain suffcientfactualmatter,accepted astrue,to statea claim to reliefthat isplausibleon itsface.''Id. Tower's complaint, as a whole, fails to state facttlal matter sufficient to state any plausibleclaim againstthedefendantshehasnnmed.Foraviablej1983claim,:&aplaintiffmust pleadthateach Governm ent-offkialdefendant,through theofficial'sown individualactions''has caused a violation of the plaintiffs constimtionalrights. Id.at676. Tower doesnotidentify whetherthe defendants are offkials atNRVRJ orstate facts aboutany actionsthey tmdertook, . personally,in violation ofhisconstim tionalrights. In any event,llisallegationsdo notindicate thathe suffered any deprivation ofconstimtionalrights. The Eighth Amendm ent protects prisoners from cnzel and tmusual living conditions. Rho1desv.Chapman,452U.S.337,347 (1981). However,ûGltlotheeitentthatsuch conditions are restrictive and even harsh,they are partofthe penalty thatcriminaloffenders pay fortheir offenses against society.'' Id. To state a constitutional claim regarding past conditions of continem ent,aprisonermustGIproduce evidence ofaseriousorsignificantphysicaloremotional injury resulting 9om the challenged conditions.'' Shakkav.Smith,71F.3d 162,166 (4th Cir. 1995).Towerfailstoidentify any injury heincurredfrom theallegedlack ofoutsiderecreation 2 The courthas omitted internalquotation marks, alterations,and citations,here and elsewhere in this memorandllm opinion,exceptwhereothem isenoted. or from segregated confinement. Accordingly, he states no facm al basis for an Eighth Am endmentclaim againstanyoneatNRVRJ.3 Toweralso com plainsaboutbeing housed in protective custody segregated confm ement, withoutdue process. A convicted inm ate's federally protected liberty GGinterests are limited to the freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected m nnner asto give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force,nonetheless imposesatypicaland sigzlificanthardship on the inm ate in relation to the ordinmy incidents of prison life.'' Sandin v.Conner,515 U.S.472,484 (1995). Ifthehousing stamsthe inmate challengesdid notimpose atypicalhardsllip on him ,then he has no federally protected liberty interest and, thus,no constitutional right to particular procedural protection related to that assignment. J.IJ.at486-87. Towerfailsto show thatprotectivecustody segregation atNRVRJ subjected him to any atypical hardship, compared to other types of confinement there. M oreover,hiscomplaintm akesclearthathisterm in thatsegregated confinementwasbriefand was expressly intended forhisprotection. The courtcnnnotfind thattheseallegationsimplicate any federaldueprocessrights.4 : . ;Itisnotclear9om hispleadingswhetherTowerwasalyetrialdetaineeoracuonvictedfelonatthetimeof the alleged violations. Claims concerning confmement conditlons imposed upon pretrialdetainees are to be evaluated undertheDueProcessClause,ràtherthan undertheEighth Amendment. Bellv.W olssh,441U.S.520, 535-538 (1979). Dueprocessproscribesptmishmentofa detaineebeforeproperadjudication ofguilthasbeen accomplished.ld.41(1)faparticularconditionorrestlictionofpretrialdetentionisreasonablyrelatedtoalegitimate governmentalobjective,itdoesnot,withoutmore,amolmttopunishment'' 1d.at539. However,asapractical matter,the contours oftheDueProcessClause in the detainee contexttend to be coextensivewith the substantive constimtionalprinciplesapplied viatheEighth Amendmentto convictedinmates. See.e.g..Hillv.Nicodemus.979 F.2d987,991-92(4thCir.1992)(detaineemedicalclaim). 4 The courtalso lindsno constitutionalviolation undertheproceduraldueprocess analysisapplicableto pretrialdetainees. To show thatrestrictive confmementispunishment,apretrialdetaineemustshow Reitherthatit was(l)imposed with an expressed intentto punish or(2)notreasonably related to a legitimate non-punitive governmentalobjective.'' See Dilworth v.Adams,841 F.3d 246,252 (4th Cir.2016). Tower's detention in sep egated confnement for his own protection,on its face,was neither punitive nor unrelated to a legitimate penologicalobjective- hissafety. ' Finally, Tower's alleged inability to access the NRVRJ'S grievance procedm e as he desired also did notimplicate any constitutionally protected right. SeeBookerv.S.C.Deo'tof Com ,855F.3d533(4thCir.2017).EGllqnmateshavenoconstimtionalentitlementordueprocess interestinaccesstoagrievanceprocedme.Aninmatethuscannotbring aj1983claim alleging denialofa specific grievance process.'' Id.at541. Thus,Tower's claim ofdenialofaccessto thegrievanceprocedureisfrivolous. Forthe stated reasons,the courtwillsummarily dismiss the action withoutprejudice under j 1997e(c)(1) for failtlre to state a claim upon wllich relief can be granted.5 % appropriate orderwillenterthisday. The Clerk is directed to send copies of this m emorandllm opii on and accompanying ordertoplaintiff. ENTER:This IV day ofNovember,2018. SeniorUnited StatesDistrictJudge 5 DismissalwithoutprejudiceleavesTowerfreetorefileoneormoreofhisclaimsin anew andseparate civilaction,providedthathecorrectsthenoted pleading deficiencies.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
